GEOPHYSICS S, VOL, XXI ). 1 (FEBRUARY, 1964), PP, 67-10, 10 FIGS, NUMERICAL CALCULATION OF THE FORMULA OF REDUCTION TO THE MAGNETIC POLE* V. BARANOV? ann H. NAUDY# Some important aspects of the principle of the redue calculation method is presented, followed by two examp INTRODUCTION It is clear that the method of reduction to the pole (Baranov, 1937) makes comprehension of magnetic maps easier, and the difficulties which the practical application of it may present are certainly not so important that we should abstain from using this interpretation method. Before considering the numerical calculation, we shall point out some important aspects con- nected with the basic principle of the method, (a) The term “pseudo-gravimetric” proposed initially may have been misleading, and we do not use it any more, It is a simple question of terminology, but we think it better not to speak of gravity, as the problem is, in fact, purely magnetic. The map calculated is the magnetic map re- duced to the pole, ie. the results which would be obtained if the magnetization of the rocks and the measured component were both vertical. Another problem which shall be dealt with at the end of this article is a compari- son of the results of this operation with gravity results. (b) The reduction tothe polemust beconsidered as a complement to other methods with which it cannot compete. A thorough study of continuous records is the very basis of aeromagnetic interpretation: the anomal of a few gammas which can hardly be seen on the total field map disappear on the map of the field reduced to the pole, and only continuous records make it possible to examine them, * Manuscript received by the Editor April 8, 1963. + Compagnie Generale de Geophysique, Montrouge (Sei tion to the pole are examined first. Secondly, a numerical ples, one theoretical, the other practical The strong and extensive anomalies, on the other hand, appear in a simple and more symmetrical form on the map of the field reduced to the pole, and their qualita tive and quantitative interpretation is easier and more reliable. (© Aserious objection to the use of the method is the fact that the remanent magneti tion of the rocks sometimes has a direction that differs from that of the normal field, and one of the basic hypotheses of the method of calculation as it has been presented is not justified. It would be possible to set up formulas which take into consideration the real direction of the magnetization (Baranov, 1958), but this parameter is generally un- known. We therefore prefer to use the same formula for each case, keeping in mind that we sometimes obtain imperfect results, Besides, we have found that on all the maps which we have had the oppor- tunity to reduce to the pole (Chastenet de Gery and Naudy, 1957), we obtain anomalies which are much more symmetri- cal than those of the total field. ‘This shows that the remanent magnetization does not cause as many disturbances as might have been suspected initially. as ‘The explanation that we shall now give of the ethod used for the numerical calculation of the reduction to the pole indicates principally the series of different calculation stages, without supplying all the demonstrations. ine), France. ercy V. Baranov and H. Naudy TOWARD THE MAGNETIC POLE < “ ABA sfo = TOWARD THE MAGNETIC EQUATOR Fic. 1, Definition of the coordinates. CALCULATION PRINCIPLE Formulas The following formulas are given for the field reduced to the pole Tar tne pote = HT) + 1, i= xSf T(p, @) Q3(c) dx (integral covering the whole plane), Q3(w) = ya + 271 cosw + + 2yecoshe t+, 1 0 = 0, Ye = (=n) RR +), = , in which pandw are the polar coordinates of a point M (Figure 1), is the value of the total field at the point M, is the value of the total field at the point 0 at which the calculation is made, and =sin i, where i is the average in- clination of the magnetic field in the area considered, T(p,«) T(0) A=cos i ‘The integration for small é values is more dif- ficult than for large values, for the successive ues of yx then diminish slowly and Q(«) con- of high rank and_ significant amplitude. Tt is consequently necessary to use more complicated calculation methods for small inclinations than for large ones. Use of a hexagonal grid The values of the total field are plotted on the corners of a hexagonal grid (Figure 2). To cal- culate the field reduced to the pole at a point 0, we choose a certain number of grid values near this point and multiply them by coefficients. We then sum up the products. The procedure for calculation of the coefficients will be described later. ‘The grid points aligned on the radiating lines in Figure 2 play an important part; the principal azimuths are used in every case, whereas the in- termediary azimuths are used only for the small values of inclination. The unit length is equal to the grid spacing. Decomposition of the integral ‘We decompose J into two integrals which are calculated separately, I: covering the inside of the circle of radius 1, and I; covering the rest of the plane. Fic. 2. Hexagonal gridReduetion to the Magni Pole 69 Limitation of the integration area tee T(p, ©) Qy(w) dw. We thus obtain proper coefficients for an in- Indy tegration that would effectively cover the whole plane, but in practice the integration domain is limited. To compensate for those coeflicients eliminated by limiting the domain, we introduce We use the method which has already been de- veloped (Baranov, 1957), and which leads to the following formulas: additional coeflicients, particularly in the mar- FT "= ginal part of the integration domain. ny Bo + 2y1 + 2y2 + 2), Definitive coefiicients a= as = tot 11-2 — Ws) The definitive coefficients thus include: the = bey e+ 1), term p assigned to the calculated point, the co- = a(yo ~ 2y1 + 2y2 — 9). efficients calculated from 1j, the coefficients cal- a Bro ~ 2yi + Dye ~ 95) culated from Fy, and the additional coefficients. For n=12: , 1 . al = D (yo + 2a + 2y2 + 2s + 24 t 2+ V0); 1 2 (ro + V391 + ¥2 = 46 — V3 758 — Y0)s 1 ae! = ano! = yp wtny — 2s — stat ¥0)y 1 ay! = as) = (Ye — Pye + 240 — 8) 12 , ' 1 ) al = ay) = (ya — 112+ 2s — H+ 0s 2 , 1 x as! “h (yo — V3 + 92 — Vet V3 95 — 0) , 1 ad = Pr (yo — 2vi + v2 — 2ya + 2vs — 275+ ¥6)- INTEGRATION ALONG THE CIRCLES INTEGRATION WITHIN THE CIRCLE OF RADIUS 1 During the calculation it is necessary to solve 1 dp the following problem several times: find oe, hh oa f T(p, w) 23(w) — do. cu, +++, @q-1 coefficients, such that the quantity me ost ’ ‘The function that has to be integrated becomes Qn infinite at the origin; to overcome this difficulty, aT [p, 0) + ast[>, =| tee we use the fact that ' +anit[s @- =| J, (w)dw = 0, ‘This enables us to write affords as good an approximation as possible of 7, = Aff [Te,0) — 7(0)] 24(w) 2 the integral ded J per pTle, 0) ~ TO) Hp, w) = ——— p isa function without any singularity at the origin. ‘The stages of the calculation of J; are: (a) Find the coefficients co, ¢1, ¢2, ¢s such that the quantity cul(O, @) ++ et, ) + cat(2, w) + cat(3, 0) (1) -0,00119 001270 0.26667 = 0.26667 0.06667 -001270 o.0o19 wnt V. Baranov and H. Naudy affords as good an approximation as possible of the integral : rte) = f U0, bdo : FO, fi T(o, ° pe We use the following values: ¢p' = 0.65000, c= — 0.06667, c= —0.00556. (b) Knowing that 42222, 10,4) = [2-700] =o 0.00238 4.202540 0.13333 0.01270 4 0.13333 o.00119 0.02540 0.00238 Fic. 3. Coefficients fy.Reduction to the Magnetic Pole n and that 41, a) = T(1,0) — TO), 12,0) = 220) = TO), 2 103, 6) Foe 70), replace the expression (1) by a «[2 Tl | + doTO) + 2:T(1, 0) 0 + d:T(2, ) + dsT(3,@). (2) We obtai =0.61482, di =0.65000, dy —0.00185. (©) Find a good approximation for the quantity [Em], For this calculation we use the following for- mula introducing not only the points of the azimuth considered, but also those of the azimuths situated 60 and 120 degrees apart [Fro] estes i =EL mr (i, ot =) at kaa ‘The coefficients ig, are given in Figure 3. (a) Perform the integration 1p qh ad, 71(w) 22(w)dw. ‘The expression (2) may be considered as the sum of three terms: &oP) + DajTG,a) + as[ > “oy | p 0 The first one is eliminated by the integration. Applying the method described above for in- tegration along the circles to each of the other two, considering n=6, we obtain: jet acs ke Nh= DD [din + eerrbal (i =), TOWARD THE MAGNETIC POLE e001 ‘2010 #0001 #0059 0.001 0.005 0.005 90.024 0-0316 00024 20043 «0043 @o s-0509 + 0.509 90004 #1420 0.004 0.007 +0007 0001 0.5 0.001 +0.006 0001 Fic. 4, Coefficients of the calculations of fy (= 16°30). an expression in which 71 is the quantity defined in the initial formulas for the field reduced to the pole and dy=0. INTEGRATION OUTSIDE THE CIRCLE OF RADIUS 1 1 a Is af 20-920) ote. is integral is convergent under certain condi- tions which we will assume are realized in the theoretical calculation and which do not in prae- tice present any obstacle, as the domain of in- tegration is limited in all directions. Let te dp fo ro0%. 1 ? 1p he f nA andy Consider two cases: (1) Six azimuths (large inclination values). In using only the principal azimuths (Figure Then, Qi(e) deo.72 V. Baranov and H. Naudy 2), we adopt the following expression for the integral r2(w): BoTO)+AT(1, wo) + +++ +8jTG,0)+ >> +, with By= ~0.02843, 81=0.39792, B»=0.55651, 8:=0.33089, 6,=0.24951, = 0.19978, and for j > 6. ‘The method of integration along the circles leads to the expression in tos zz aat(i =). (2) Twelve azimuths (small inclination values). Using 12 azimuths (Figure 2), we adopt the following expressions for the integral 72: On the principal azimuths, ATO)+B:T(1, 0) + ++ > +8,7(j,0)+ >>>, where the coefficients 8 are the same as in the with six azimuths On the intermediary azimuths, Bo! T(0) + BY T(V3, 0) + + B/TGV3, &) +--+, with o'=0.05357, 8, and B,'=8; for j>3, ‘The method of integration along the circles leads to the following expression: = E Saewr( i,t) rT 3 0.90989, 0.51184, fa tet baie + EE o/ eat (svi, eat ) iim r 3 ‘The term 7(0) is not eliminated here, for By is not equal to y'; its coefficient is kes $ Bo Doan! + Bl Daeg’. m im LIMITATION OF THE INTEGRATION DOMAIN We use a regular hexagon, with sides equal to eight grid spacings, as the domain of integration. One diagonal of the hexagon is parallel to the magnetic north-south direction and the coei- ficients are of course axially symmetrical. The calculated point is not necessarily in the center of the hexagon; in the case of small clination values, the coefficients are much greater toward the magnetic equator than toward the pole; the calculated point is then displaced so that the greatest possible number of large co- efficients are included in the integration domain. ‘The successive stages are the following: cal- culation of the coefficients as if the integration included the whole plane, choice of the position of the calculated point on the north-south diagonal of the hexagon, and determination of additional coefficients for compensating for the coefficients situated outside the integration domain, For the last stage of the calculation, we operate an empirical way, imposing two conditions: ‘The first is that the sum of all the coefficients should be equal tow. ‘The second is that the use of the coefiicients in a theoretical example should give a result as satisfactory as possible; as a theoretical example, we take the anomaly created by a spherical mass situated at a depth equal to 2.5 grid spacings. PROBLEM CONCERNING VERY SMALL INCLINATIONS When the inclination is very small, the coei- ficient calculation raises new problems that we have not solved, but we are not sure that the re- duction to the pole would be of much interest in that case. An example which gives the best illus- tration of this problem is that of structures in a north-south direction: when the inclination is zero, they do not produce any anomaly, except at their extremities. To obtain an accurate reduc- tion to the pole, it is necessary to have coef ficients with high values, covering a large in- tegration domain, These two conditior the operation less interesting; the higher the values of the coefficients, the greater are the dis- turbances caused by very localized anomalies and imperfections on the map. ‘The smallest inclination for which we have made a reduction to the pole so far is 16°30. It would perhaps be reasonable to make a reduction for somewhat smaller inclinations, but we feel makeReduction to the Magnetic Pole 73 TOWARD THE MAGNETIC POLE = 9,008 007 0001 +002 -a010 +0010 002 +0002 = ao02 +0008 40015 +0003 +0003 +9008 +0005 +0005 +0005 +0006 +0027 e-0027 +0006 +0910 «0003 0010 sana «008 seneaDI6 0920 «0027-042 +0074 O-a268 +0074 +0062 4.0027 «00204-0018 oes 0081 +0081 one east eine 10068 61386 61386 +0051 +2072 008 s-on34 0780 +1232 +0829 0504 +0504 0025 some +2020 +aseo 0621 +0380 +0532 +0308 0.304 +0466 0254 soars 02s +0373 pais wo +0340 +0190 +0310 +0390 10.200 168 0188 ro266 so2ae 0233 Fic. 5. Coefficients of the calculation of Is (:14 V. Baranov and H. Naudy TOWARD THE MAGNETIC POLE +-0.007 0008 0002 +002 s-o002 s-op10 sa010 += 0002 +0002 +0001 s-0002 +0003 +0003 +1003 +0015 «ops «apts +0903 -an04 +0084 --a004 0927 +0027 »-0011 aos “rosig 40.04 ost tonsi 0074 © 0016 +0890 0590 sono 42.901 +00 s0961 +1506 +0081 +0052 +1987 +0082 = 004 aoa 034 s-a7e0 "1238 +0700 0034 sene-0016 40020 «0027 «0082 1074 O42 40.027 «0020 +0016 +0028 026 sos28 1- 0023 0504 0744 +0300 +0621 10532 0308 0.488 10.256 0.413 +0373 o-0218 +0340 080 0.310 10.208 169 : +0266 Fig. 6. Coefficients for an infinite 16°30’). ntegration area and limit of the area actually used (Reduction to the Magnetic Pole 5 TOWARD THE MAGNETIC POLE 001 ® #001 4.001 «001 e001 e001 +001 60.01 e001 4-091 «001 001 «001 001 a-a0t 001 e001 e091 sont sont #001 e091 +001 001 6-001 60.01 4-001 40.01 «0.01 0.01 «0.01 «0.01 +001 001 001 +-0.01 OY 0.01 «0.01 or ea0r +00 . 01 =0,01 #-0.01 0.01 sat «0.01 s-0.01 +-0.01 4004-001 e001 +-0.01 +001 +-0.01 «ant + 40.08 40.05 0.01 0.01 +005 0.01 $0.01 #-0.11 #001 #00) 2-90.01 «0.1 e001 40.01 0 oo 0.01 4-001 6-001 +00) 0.01 «0,01 001 40.25 «0.01 Fig. 7. Additional coefficients (= 16°30"). that the value of 15 degrees approaches the limit beyond which the method probably offers little interest in practice. From a theoretical point of view, it is also prob- able that the formulas would have to be com- pletely changed for very small inclinations, for, when the inclination decreases, the significant points, ic. those affected by important coefficients are concentrated in a section that becomes more and more narrow when approaching the magnetic equator. In order to be effective, the integration must at the same time spread as far as possible in this direction. Consequently, we may no longer treat the spherical suriace swept by the aircraft as a plane; the sphericity of the earth must be taken into consideration, NUMERICAL EXAMPLE-—INCHINATION OF 16°30" Let i= 16°30’, h=cos i= 0.95882, p=sini =0,28402, = (1—p)/A=0.74673. Then 70, “n= - 0.95882, y2=2.54718, ys=—4.10220, v4 = 5.32195, ¥5= — 6.13395, ye= 6.53676, and e@o= 0.18425, ad! = 0.00858, ai=as= 0.09937, a’ =an'= —0.02949, @2=a4= —0.94843, ae’ = ayo’ = — 0.01889, as= 1.85237, a3’=a5' = — 0.08127, ai =ax = 0.20417, as! =ay/ = — 1.52343, a= 3.72308.6 V. Baranov and H. Naudy ‘The coefficients for the calculation of / and Is rounded off to three decimals are given respec- tively in Figures 4 and 5. The coefficient of T(0) in the calculation of Z: is equal to » ie Dan’ + Bi Dany’ = — 0.268. ms Par] Figure 6 represents the coefficients for an in- nite integration domain and the limit for the integration domain actually employed. Figure 7 represents the additional coefficients empirically determined. The definitive coefficients rounded off to two decimals are given in Figure 8. ‘These coefficients have been tested on the total field anomaly created by a spherical mass, the center of which is situated at a depth equal to 2.5 grid spacings (Figure 9). ‘The theoretical anomaly of the field reduced to the pole is represented by concentric circles; the center value is two hundred. At each point of intersection of the hexagonal grid we have noted the differences between the value we have found and the theoretical value. It seems to us that these differences are small enough to make possible the use of the coefficients on aeromagnetic maps. EXAMPLE CONCERNING COMPARISON WITH GRAVITY In most cases, the resemblance between the field reduced to the pole and the gravity field is TOWARD THE MAGNETIC POLE 0008 4-00) 6078 412d 0.78 DOF 10.04 4-001 6-001 4-001 4-001 +-0.01 10.93 0.01 001 0140.78 2-091 o-0.01 +-0.0 . 0.38 001-001 0,01 0,01 901 001 0.01 0,50 +-0.50 001 001 +001 1046 0.01 e001 +001 «0.01 +-0.01 0.01 ses + oat 20.25 0.04 s-001 O01 0.01 «0.01 e001 +001 +0.04 +0,08 snot 40.87 0.01 +005 0.22 o.22 +001 0.01 so. oor 083 OT nat apt «0.01 a1 90,3) 011 001 4-001 G01 40.01 --001 «0.01 20.28 s-0.01 «002 «01 0.25 Fig. 8. Definitive coefficients (¢= 16°30’)TOWARD THE MAOMETIC EQUATOR Reduction to the Magnetic Pole FIELD REDUCED TO THE TOTAL FIELD a (a. 16°30") THE MAGHETIC POLE | PLANE OF MEA SUREMENTS _ : . mass Fic. 9. Test with the coefficients on the anomaly of a spherical mass. 7 POLE78 not very good; this may be explained by two facts: (1). Gravity reflects some differentiations be- tween sedimentary rocks that do not create magnetic anomalies, (2). Even for intrabasement differentiations, the relations between densities are not necessarily the same as those between the magnetizations. ‘Therefore, the example that we shall now de- velop, in which the field reduced to the pole V. Baranov and H. Naudy coincides exactly with the gravity results, is ex- ceptional. A huge intrusion, situated near the coast of Senegal, causes a gravity anomaly of 80 mgal and an anomaly of the total field of 700 gammas (Figure 10). In order to calculate the field re- duced to the pole, we have completed the anomaly of the total field beyond the coast, supposing that it was roughly axially symmetrical, the axis hav- ing the magnetic north-south direction, We have employed coefficients which are similar to those 330 340 380 340 350 330 340 350 / spar me 1760 1760 a 1750 a 1740 T 4730 i /| T | |__| 4720] 1720 af 1 | | | Hy = 1700} 4700 330 340 350 “340 350 330 340 350 —_—_—_—— © KILOMETERS 20 TOTAL FIELD FIELD REDUCED TO THE BOUGUER ANOMALY shown in gammas POLE shown in milligals shown in gammas F16. 10, Example of comparison hetween magnetism and gravity.Reduction to the Magnetic Pol of Figure 8, the inclination of the magnetic field in Senegal differing only slightly from 16°30’, ‘The center of the anomaly on the field reduced to the pole coincides exactly with that of the gravity anomaly, conciusion ‘The method for numerical calculation we have developed is certainly not the only valid one. It is possible that other methods give better results, but we hope that the suggestions given will be of help to those who wish to use the field reduced to 79 the pole for the interpretation of their magnetic maps. REFERENCES Baranov, V., 1957, A new method for interpretation of aeromagnetic maps: pscudo-gravimetric anomalies: Geophysics, v. 22, pp. 359-383. Chastenet de Gery, J., and Naudy, H., 1957, Sur Vi terprétation des snomalies gravimétriques et mag- nétiques (gradient vertical de g, magnétisme a terre, aéromagnétisme): Geoph. Prosp., v. 5, pp. 421-H48. Baranoy, V., 1958, Die berechnung magnetischer Felder mittels der Gravimetrie: Freiberger Forschungshefte, n® C45, pp. 45-51